HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210755 269 Broadway-Revised Site Plan Correspondance Engineering and 1533 Crescent Road
/��� Land Surveying, P.C. Clifton Park, NY 12065
.J Phone: 518.371 .0799
mjelspc@mjels.com
January 21, 2022 mjels.com
Susan B. Barden,AICP
Principal Planner
City of Saratoga Springs
474 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, NY
518-587-3550 ext. 2493
Re: 20210755—269 Broadway Review for Planning Board
CHA Project No. 58389-1003
Dear Ms. Barden,
MJ Engineering is in receipt of comments dated November 5, 2021 from CHA Consulting, Inc. (CHA) and an email
from CHA on January 1, 2022 regarding the 269 Broadway Project. We offer the following, displayed in : _lt�z,fr.r.s, in
response to open comments listed below:
A. FEAF Part 1
All previous comments have been addressed with the second submission
B. Site Plans—General Comments:
1. The plans provided are stamped "DRAFT". Plans should be finalized and stamped/signed by a
professional engineer prior to action by the Planning Board. Comment has been acknowledged in the
second submission response letter, but stamped plans have not yet been provided.
2. Comment has been addressed with the second submission.
3. There appears to be an encroachment of Spa Catholic's existing parking lot along the southerly property
boundary. An easement appears to be provided for this, but the specifics are unclear. More detail is
required. Applicant has indicated this is in progress.
;< ;; ;y. +.'�� !��< a rrn<.,, a -,;, Y �,rs;"''?'I'i 2 UpOY1 COYYIp E'fi?d�5,"'r,
, _ , .. . .. 7,.,_ , _ ._
4. There appears to be work proposed beyond the property line on the north side (Saratoga Hospital
property) associated with removal and replacement of encroaching electric and gas lines and a sidewalk.
A narrative should be provided to explain how this is being addressed with the adjacent property owner.
Applicant has indicated this is in progress.
C. Conformance with zoning, neighborhood tie in design form, civic space elements, screening, buffering, site &
public space lighting:
1. The site is situated in the T-6 Urban Core district. The plans incorporate civic space elements as required,
which will be reviewed in detail by the Planning Board. For further review by the Planning Board.
2. There appears to be a gap in the existing pedestrian scale street lighting along the South Broadway site
frontage. An existing cobra-style streetlight exists at the approximate midpoint. The architectural
renderings have omitted the existing fixture and show a pedestrian scale fixture in its place; however,the
plans do not show this. The Planning Board should discuss its requirements on this matter with the
applicant, and either the plan or rendering should be corrected. Comment has been acknowledged in
the second submission response letter, but no change to the site plans or rendering appears to have
been made.
Fishkill, NY • Long Island, NY • Sewell, NJ • Melbourne, FL
269 Broadway Comment Response Letter
���`� January 21, 2022
�� Page 2 of 9
�"esnonse. See enclosed revised renderinqs.
D. Pedestrian, bicycle, auto, emergency vehicle, truck accessibility & maneuvering space:
1. Vehicle access to the underground parking garage is from Hamilton Street. A parking garage layout
included with the architectural drawings indicates 70 spaces on two levels. An AutoTurn diagram
showing the vehicle path through the garage is needed to verify adequate maneuverability is provided,
as turning space inside the garage appears very tight. An AutoTurn diagram has been provided with the
second submission. It demonstrates that a passenger car is able to maneuver through the garage to a
parking space. A concern remains regarding how a vehicle might turn around at the dead ends within the
garage if no empty spaces are available.
Ret .r � ���he layo�at is not unlike m����;= E. .���. ° r � �r;c-1 ; �,;� , , , : "� � �.�. �� �� << . .; �
r;�n�." . fr� G f ;'i: . e =z i r i�;,'� 1 t u"'��pCir e°;tt7t�lt"��"�`�itL9fE6�. . .1 .t�:� r;. J .`.,. ..
2. Deliveries and trash are also located in an enclosed, covered area accessed from Hamilton Street. A 40-
foot long pull off lane has been provided along the Hamilton Street curb line, which will accommodate a
city delivery truck, but not a tractor trailer. The plan for accommodating larger trucks should be
discussed in the context of what deliveries are expected at the site. Applicant's response indicates no
tractor trailer deliveries will be made. The Planning Board should determine if they require additional
information to support this.
,e'Sj�t.is .,'; t.f�ts2,?,C:?'�'�L7C�f�?:sv:'"r`it;�L�£'z7� P]Ci G7Ct"(t7i') r'E'(�'UIY�C�.
3. The plans show what appear to be two tip-up style dumpsters in the covered trash/loading area. The
sizes are not indicated. It does not appear that there will be adequate maneuvering room for the
garbage truck to access the dumpsters where they are shown. Additionally, there does not appear to be
sufficient overhead clearance to tip them up into the truck inside the enclosure area. A workable trash
removal plan should be submitted. The solid waste generation rate indicated in the LEAF (4 T/week)
appears to be low for the amount of development proposed. More detail should be submitted to
support that calculation. The solid waste management plan submitted does not appear to be sufficient
for even that amount of waste generation. The project narrative indicates that the dumpsters will be
pulled to the street and then tipped up into the garbage truck. The Applicant should demonstrate
specifically how this will be accomplished. From the description provided, it does not appear feasible or
desirable. Note that transformers have been relocated to the trash/loading area,which further limits
space for trash/recyclables storage and maneuvering.
_ , :r ; �'��N�r ___ r . . _ .�,. . .. , _ , . v . � �.
and how the waste will be removec�',
4. The plans include provisions for bicycle parking near the main entrance.
':�>spanse. Comment acknowledgec�;na action required.
E. ADA compliance—site& public space, accessible parking and accessible routes:
1. It appears the intent is to provide an accessible route to the main building entrance from the Hamilton
Street Sidewalk at the rear of the building. A walkway with a ramp is also provided from the South
Broadway sidewalk at the front of the building to the main entrance on the south fa�ade. The section of
sidewalk between the bottom of the ramp and the entrance plaza is sloped at 4.5%. This is less than 5%,
so railings are not code-required, but it exceeds 2%, so this walk is not an accessible route. An
opportunity exists to provide accessibility to the main entrance from South Broadway by extending the
ramp. This should be considered. It is strongly suggested that accessibility be considered from South
Broadway, as it experiences heavier pedestrian traffic. Applicant's response requests clarification of the
comment. Our opinion is that the accessible route from South Broadway could be improved upon. The
4.5%slope on the sidewalk at the bottom of the ramp, while technically compliant, feels out of place
here. Additional landings will also be required at the top and bottom of the ramp, and when added they
269 Broadway Comment Response Letter
���`� January 21, 2022
�� Page 3 of 9
will push that slope even steeper. Consideration should be given to using three flatter ramp segments
with equally spaced intermediate landings and not exceeding a 2% running slope on the connecting
sidewalk.
s.,� � ._
2. The plans include new radiant heated sidewalks along the Hamilton Street frontage and part of the South
Broadway frontage. The existing sidewalk along the southern portion of the South Broadway frontage
will not be replaced, and radiant heating is not proposed for this section or for the new ramp mentioned
above. Consideration should be given to whether these areas should be heated, or if at a minimum the
building mechanicals should be sized to allow continuation of the radiant heating in the future to include
the remainder of the South Broadway sidewalk. Comment has been acknowledged in the second
submission response letter. Further consideration by the Planning Board is suggested.
�_ �._. . � r� � . , . . .:, t .._ � .
3. The parking garage includes three accessible spaces which meets the requirements of ADAAG.
_ � . � � ����r c , ,�r7�r���a�ir�e=��`.
F. Site layout—property/building setbacks,traffic/pedestrian circulation, layout, dimensions, deliveries,trash storage
& pickup, fire apparatus access, generator placement,transformer placement, gas meter placement, mechanical
equipment placement:
1. The layout appears to generally conform to the requirements of the T-6 district. No deviations from the
bulk and area requirements are evident.
2. Comment has been addressed with the second submission.
3. Comment has been addressed with the second submission.
4. Transformer placement is shown along the south side of the building. Access to the transformers is
assumed to be from Spa Catholic. National Grid's verification and acceptance of this plan is required.
Transformers have been relocated to the trash/delivery area with the second submission. National Grid
may have some concerns with the layout shown. Their acceptance of the plan is required.
_ .. _ . . ��r�s°� . �, „ Pr. �;1 u�_ .._.. . „ . ��,�r���� ��s
. rs
5. The building plans show a generator in the northwest corner of the parking garage lower level. No
information on the generator was provided (diesel/natural gas,venting/exhaust locations, sound
attenuation proposed). This information should be submitted for Planning Board review. Catalog cut
sheets for a 150 kW natural gas generator have been provided.
._"S�f}j'1CY; I`(O r�SK�LTYJSP rc',Cs,£t1Y�C�(+.
6. As noted, dumpsters are shown in an enclosed, covered area on the west side of the building. In addition
to the comments above related to accessing and emptying the dumpsters, the applicant should also
verify that they are sized correctly for the anticipated waste generation. Additionally, and particularly
with respect to the restaurant operation, locations for storage of of recyclables, cardboard, grease cubes
and other exchangeable items should be identified on the plan and discussed in narrative. As noted
above, more detailed documentation is required to quantify solid waste and recycling generation rates,
required container sizes and a workable plan to empty waste and recycling containers.
Respar�se.� S�e revised�rarrative%c�,�E'Y�E?;`t ��r,%%'" C� �,�,Y(7911(�f�a �7? f7t)�),��J�it?7t7t<> �t��C"CJ�q'''"i"r �� •,
c�r�d hojr�r the waste wil(��r�move�'.
7. The plans do not show the size and location of the multiple gas meters that will be required on this
building. The applicant should provide this information. Applicant's response indicates this has yet to be
determined.
, . P�t�t t�'r'c:;"t �L'1tt?CJi�`�rE�c�'�jE'�,.' f7C �aCilt�?'r Y�C;e,+l�`t:C7'.
269 Broadway Comment Response Letter
���`� January 21, 2022
�� Page 4 of 9
8. Comment has been addressed with the second submission.
G. Site grading—min/max slopes, appropriate collection &conveyance, maintenance of existing drainage patterns:
1. Comment has been addressed with the second submission.
2. Comment has been addressed with the second submission.
3. It is unclear how precipitation that falls/blows onto the surface of the open-air community space on the
east and south sides of the building will drain. More grade control is required in this area, and it appears
that drainage structures will be required. This area requires careful attention to ensure proper drainage
and to minimize freezing concerns. A trench drain has been added along the exterior edge of this area,
except at the northern end where a drainage issue still appears to be present in the design.
i`5E'SjJt)tr i_' i.c�+rlf C'ia �:;+;"Gf-��CJIICC�1?f�'� C3j7F'1'r' CafY.'..C'i ,�;P7iL71�,'l`}/Sf�G`CF'YF'Y7r� �/� ;„
4. We would also recommend a closed drainage system for the entry plaza and the South Broadway ramp.
The current design appears to concentrate runoff coming from the east at the bottom of the ramp and
spreads it across the entry plaza. This creates several concerns, including the potential for freezing at the
building entrance. Applicant's response indicates drainage structures have been added. However, our
original comment/concern has not been addressed.
� r-- ._ �,�- � � �,_ ;c,_ � �. _,
5. This comment has been addressed by removing the transformers from this area.
6. We recommend a curb be added between the Catholic Central parking lot and the new sidewalk on the
south side of the building to contain and collect runoff that currently flows toward the project site from
the existing parking lot and to keep vehicles from parking on the sidewalk. The second submission did
not include a response to this comment. Our comment remains.
,
�r_ �,- ., . , _ e. . . _ � :,- - -
..., ., <
r�,.-�� , _, ,, _ .� . . ._ > . . . _. . . - �._ .., _, ._ , ..,. � _.. . ,_
7. New drainage structures appear to be needed along Hamilton Street on either side of the access to the
parking garage. The design appears to create a ponding issue there. The second submission shows
drainage structures as recommended. However, there is still a potential ponding issue where the curb
line transitions into the delivery lane.
,. , . ._ �. . �Fr� ,� ,i��c�plcid�s��.
H. Stormwater management design &SWPPP:
1. Comment has been addressed with the second submission.
2. Comment has been addressed with the second submission.
3. Comment has been addressed with the second submission.
4. Comment has been addressed with the second submission.
5. The HydroCAD model indicated an available storage volume of 1,455 CF for 3'Wx194'Lx0.5'H stormwater
planters. However,the Grading and Drainage Plan Sheet C-130 does not appear to show a total of 194
linear feet of stormwater planters. Please revise WQv calculations, HydroCAD model, and/or design plans
for the stormwater planters accordingly.The HydroCAD model in the second submission indicated an
available storage volume of 1,795 CF for the stormwater planters. However,this volume calculation is
based on 3.70'Wx194'Lx2.5'H of storage. The stormwater planters only allow for 0.5 feet of ponding. The
available storage volume should be±359 CF. This needs to be corrected.
Respanse: Comment acknowledged;see t, , .�� ��.�"ans which show a� ,.. , � _ . ��r,r;
.�,;_
. .. . _ r � C� '�����, .,_. r, rt. , ��-: , . _ �:
6. Comment has been addressed with the second submission.
7. Comment has been addressed with the second submission.
8. Comment has been addressed with the second submission.
269 Broadway Comment Response Letter
���`� January 21, 2022
�� Page 5 of 9
I. Work in ROW—curb &sidewalk replacement, curb ramps, pavement repair, maintenance/protection of traffic:
1. Sidewalk/driveway crossing plan and details do not match City standards. Concrete sidewalk should be
continuous through the driveway crossing. Heavy duty concrete sidewalk section is required (4"thick is
not adequate for vehicle traffic). Refer to and incorporate City of Saratoga Springs standard details. The
second submission references the City detail at the parking entrance. However the service driveway
shows asphalt pavement crossing the sidewalk and no curb ramps. This needs to be corrected.
_ ��3w�i`S � .v t "'r" � ..
2. Comment has been addressed with the second submission.
3. Comment has been addressed with the second submission.
4. In light of the site work and building coverage proposed right to the street lines in an urban environment,
plans and narrative are required to address construction staging, crane operation, laydown areas,
road/lane closures and work zone traffic control measures that will be required during construction.
Comment has been partially addressed with the second submission. The Planning Board may want to
discuss any need for temporary road and sidewalk closures with the Applicant.
�_ � � r. . � . .
J. Water& sewer service connections:
1. Comment has been addressed with the second submission.
2. Comment has been addressed with the second submission.
3. Comment has been addressed with the second submission.
4. The design calls for a new 6-inch water service connected to an existing 6-inch main on Hamilton Street.
There are multiple existing mains available. DPW should verify that this is the preferred option.
Comment has been acknowledged in the second submission response letter. Follow up with DPW is
required.
�' lomment ackno�
5. The detail (9/C505) provided for the water service is for a small diameter copper line and is not
appropriate to this installation. The plans should be revised with the correct detail and should indicate
whether a wet tap is proposed. The water service detail (9/C504) is still not appropriate for the size/type
of connection proposed.
6. Comment has been addressed with the second submission.
K. Landscaping & site lighting:
1. No new street trees have been proposed along South Broadway or Hamilton Street. The plans call for
removal of an existing 12" maple on Hamilton Street. The Planning Board may wish to require its
replacement and improvement of the streetscape along the South Broadway frontage. Comment has
been acknowledged in the second submission response letter. Further consideration by the Planning
Board is suggested.
r ;�sc. _�, ,. . ..s �.. .,r��, ��� � a � _ �_ ; , �e �. � ,� �r.�. , ��. .. ,, . , �� . , _. .
been excessively pruned due to conflicts with the power lines in this location. Additional trees have been
caclded wi�-hin the Civic spc�ce
L. Site details— pavement&trench sections, misc. details:
1. Sidewalk detail shows a haunch and dowels along edge of proposed building. Is the intent to use this
detail at the doors? Typically we would see a frost wall detail there. Please verify with building designer.
Applicant's response indicates architect's detail at building entrance has been referenced, but the
original detail remains. This is confusing.
���. �: ����:fa,�:���� :� >��r�ils are currently being finalized and will include the dPtails af the
269 Broadway Comment Response Letter
���`� January 21, 2022
�� Page 6 of 9
f�r,rndation,/frost wall at the building.
2. We recommend venting for grease traps extending to the building roof. The detail provided does not
appear to include venting and may create an odor issue. Applicant's response indicates a note has been
added to the plan. We did not observe a note, and the grease trap detail does not show a vent.
_ �.� �Y°r�ent >�. ._ �gr. , .�e � ���
M. Traffic Impact Study comments are broken down by report section, as follows:
1. Comments on Existing and No Build Conditions Section:
a. Comment has been addressed with the second submission.
b. Comment has been addressed with the second submission.
c. Comment has been addressed with the second submission.
d. Comment has been addressed with the second submission.
e. Comment has been addressed with the second submission.
f. For SYNCHRO traffic analysis, for PHF and percent heavy vehicles, it is recommended to use
calculated values from turning movement counts instead of default values.
RE'�}?,� .;�. _ �r � ` . ���i`e'z , r .`'�' _S4 �f�F�rl. �r�J°R1 fYC?YYl f,�12 'C!1+?-�'°��
movement counts.
g. Comment has been addressed with the second submission.
h. Comment has been addressed with the second submission.
2. Comments Proposed Conditions Section:
a. Comment has been addressed with the second submission.
b. Comment has been addressed with the second submission.
c. Comment has been addressed with the second submission.
d. Please provide trip reduction percentages for each land use and for each sub-category along with
back-up data (Table 4 of TIS). Comment noted, please refer to new comments section below for
additional information.
e. Please clarify why it was assumed that pass-by traffic would park offsite (Section 4.2 of TIS).
Comment noted, please refer to new comments section below for additional information.
f. Comment has been addressed with the second submission.
g. The site plan shows relocation of"SCHOOL BUS ONLY 7 AM—4 PM" sign. Please clarify where would
school bus parking sign shifted during and after construction and how it will affect student pick-
up/drop-off.The relocation of sign would also reduce School Bus staging area, please provide
alternatives. Comment noted, please refer to new comments section below for additional
information.
3. Comments on Conclusions/Recommendations Section:
a. According to City code, there is no requirement for off street parking in the current T-6 Urban Core
zone where the proposed development is located, please provide link and specific text. Comment
noted, please refer to new comments section below for additional information.
b. It is recommended to provide parking accumulation analysis to determine peak parking demand and
to make sure that there is no parking shortfall. Comment noted, please refer to new comments
section below for additional information.
c. Based on latest census data for Saratoga Springs City, approximately 81%of residents would drive to
work while approximately 85%workers who work in Saratoga Springs City would arrive via auto.
Therefore, it is recommended to review data from latest census to determine proper mode share.
Comment noted, please refer to new comments section below for additional information.
269 Broadway Comment Response Letter
���`� January 21, 2022
�� Page 7 of 9
d. Comment has been addressed with the second submission.
4. The following are new comments based on review of revised Traffic Impact Study dated October 13,
2021.
Section 4.0 Proposed Conditions
a. How baseline vehicle mode share of 85%was determined for Shopping Center(Land Use Code 820).
Please note that auto mode share of 85% (from CHA's comments memo dated September 15, 2021)
is for workers who work in Saratoga Springs City which cannot be applied to Shopping Center use
because of different land use.
Response: If�asing 1001nfil` r , � . _, � , , � , .f��.�. , . . � ��v .� . <.
z ,_
�1��;', v . ,� �,,, _ F:� � �,.r. . , , . .
b. Please clarify why Clinic land use was considered to determine credit for existing parking lot usage.
. r;�nsc. , �� ;��- ,�._� �.�. . , 7�_ . ._ �_ „_ _ .. .. .. _
c� ��a� � v �arar ��v� �_ ,, t. . .,.,. ti _ ,���tr �^� _ Ai�-!
c. At the intersection of 269 Broadway Garage and Hamilton Street,the pass-by trips should be
removed from through movement and added to entry/exit movements.
Response: The pass-by trips wauld originate from Broadway ar patrans visiting other businesses in
Sar�tac+a and+��c�i�osr�r��t!s i� t�?�fdrst avai�al�(e s�ar�ce faund�nc�therefc�re would not use the on-site
d. Please clarify which scenario is preferred one—Standard Distribution or Modified Distribution. Please
clarify how left turn out of 269 Broadway Garage will be restricted as it is not clear from Layout Plan
(C-120).
!�;`� '+`��sF_'.' ��)£'/7"it^t,�t�I`U'(,��%5�r1'�3��?`)Ot'i f5�?YF_'�`f I�YC't,�, �F_'f�"�t(�"??S F_�k'1��R�t7 ��47!' t^R)-51�`2�G�f F.A�'i7 G�Gii`�7�t {nffr'�f�F_'
accomplished by installing a raised curb island, installing No Left Turn (MUTCD No. R3-2)signs at the
exit of the parking garage as well as across Hamilton Street from the parking garage.Additional
signage will be installed within the garage text "Exiting Vehicles Must Turn Right"(MUTCD R3-7
�. .�_ _�
e. Please provide signing and striping plan including AutoTURN analysis for intersection of Hamilton
Street and West Circular Street, where addition of striped right turn lane on southbound approach is
recommended.
Section 5.0 Parking
a. As per Section 5 for parking -paragraph 4 "There are an average of 83 available spaces within 1,000
feet of the proposed property throughout the day with a maximum of 109 available spaces during
the AM peak hour. Within 1,700 feet, there are an average of 168 available spaces with a maximum
of 285 available spaces during the AM peak hour." Please list parking lot/garages included to
determine available parking spaces.
Res�ac-_;.�.
Hamilton Street—On-street parking
Federal Street—On-street parking
Washington Street—On-street parking
Broadway—On-street parking
b. As per Section 5 for parking -paragraph 4 "Within 1,000 feet of the property,there is an average
shortfall of 239 spaces and a minimum of 213. Within 1,700 feet of the property,there is an average
shortfall of 154 spaces and a minimum of 37". Please explain how shortfall of parking will be
269 Broadway Comment Response Letter
���`� January 21, 2022
�� Page 8 of 9
addressed even after considering area within 1,700 feet of property (approximately one-third mile
within property).
Response:
Hamilton Street—On-streei parking
Federal Street—On-street parking
Washington Street—On-street parking
Broadway—On-street parking
Railroad Place—On-street parking
Division Street—On-street parking
Putnam Street Garage
Spring Street Parking Lot
Section 6.0 Conclusions/Recommendations
a. The text in Paragraph 5 shown below conflicts with Section 5.0 Parking as new parking data was
collected in September 2021. Please revise text.
"An analysis of existing parking usage would not accurately represent pre-pandemic
conditions as with the recent surge in COVID 19 cases in the area, the habits of citizens and
visitors are not typically back to pre-pandemic levels.Additionally,the recently completed
track season would have had an impact on any usage data collected."
._ .,. , .._ r _. , , . ._ . � 4' , ., .Je ._.�,
N. Cost estimate for letter of credit:
1. Comment has been addressed with the second submission.
2. Comment has been addressed with the second submission.
3. Comment has been addressed with the second submission.
Email from Tony Stellato,January 3, 2022:
I received a phone call today from David Biggs of Biggs Engineering who represented that he is a structural engineer
who was retained by an adjacent building owner to perform an independent review of the plans for 269
Broadway. Mr. Biggs brought the following observations to my attention:
1. CHA's second review letter dated 11/5/2021 acknowledges receipt of a geotechnical report from Terracon
dated 9/5/2015. The date of the report is actually 9/5/2019.
Res�onse: Corrrment acknowledged,
2. Mr. Biggs pointed out that the project description in the geotechnical report states that the basement
parking level will be at about elevation 295, which is not consistent with the building plans submitted. Mr.
Biggs feels that the geotechnical report should be revised to address this inconsistency, particularly in regard
to the depth of excavation required to construct the underground parking and the protection of adjacent
buildings and utilities. CHA has reviewed this concern, and we recommend that the applicant be asked to
address it.
Respons�: r�pplicant wilf submit the revised geotechnical report once compfete.
269 Broadway Comment Response Letter
���`� January 21, 2022
�� Page 9 of 9
Sincerely,
f �'
�
Alison Yovine, PLA
Project Manager